P1: If nothing exists, then no possibilites existP2: If no possibilities exist, then nothing can happenP3: If nothing can happen, then a universe cannot begin to existC: A universe couldn't have began to exist, from nothing

However...

P1: If nothing exists, then the laws of logic do not existP2: If the laws of logic do not exist, then something can happen, even if no possibilities existP3: If something can happen, even if no possibilities exist, then the universe could have began from nothingc: The universe could have began to exist, from nothing

This just leads me to believe, that the very idea of "nothing" is illogical because "nothing" entails two contradictory conclusions (that a universe couldn't have began to exist from nothing, and that a universe could have began to exist from nothing). This means, then if someone asks the age old question with regards to why there is "something", rather than "nothing", just tell them that the very idea of "nothing" entails contradiction, so "something" is necessary.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

Why is "nothing" being contradictory important? That's the one part I'm confused on since it presupposes that logical laws exist and thus fails to explain somethings existence. If logical laws didn't exist, there would be no problem with the concept of "nothing". It's only because logical laws exist that you can make this argument, so you haven't given a complete explanation.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

No question is deeper than contemplating if no universes ever came to being.

Nobody understands "nothing." We can take a glass and pour out the liquid and say there's nothing in it, but all we are doing is pouring out liquid and pouring in gas. Even in the vacuum of space, we are simply looking at the macro scale of a froth of quantum fluctuations. "Nothing" only has meaning in the abstract, as in I had 3 pizzas, now I have no pizzas.

But wait... does "something" have a meaning? We thought atoms were blobs of matter, but they turned out to be empty. Even the subatomic particles seem to have a certain emptiness to them, and we really don't seem to be made up of "stuff" so much as we are energy, vibrations, etc... All this solid matter around us appears to be absolutely nothing.

My answer would be that there is no such thing as something and nothing. What we have here are abstract concepts - I have 3 pizzas (something), now I have no pizzas (nothing) - and we are extending them over our universe.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.

No it doesn't. Mathematics is the only reason we understand the quantum level. We just he to use more complicated stuff like Grassman numbers.

Also, maths is abstract, so technically it doesn't "exist". That was my point. Asking why we exist is pointless, as it assumes some absolute, hard line between things that "exist" and things that "don't exist". Our basic understanding of the surrounding world breaks down the closer we examine everything. Who's to say the concept of "existence" won't break down as well? What if there are intermediate/alternative states that we don't recognise because our brains haven't evolved to recognise them?

Imagine there are two universes, both capable of supporting intelligent life, with incompatible laws of physics. Does universe A exist relative to universe B? They have no way of interacting or detecting each other's existence. What about universe C, where the laws of physics allow interaction with both A and B? Or universe D, which interacts with C in a way that stops it interacting with A and B?

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

I was not bolstering the notion that it wasn't; my grief was for the circle-logic used to explain why the universe must exist.

If you have the mathematical equation for the fundamental forces of nature, it will generate a mathematical universe with mathematical life-forms that can receive inputted data, calculate them against their mathematically-determined personalities, and conclude they are conscious entities living in a real world, then question why this is so.

In other words, the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry, so if something conceivably can exist then it will exist somewhere.

You're begging the question that something exists to prove that something must exist.

The fact that something rather than nothing is self-evident. Can you please be more specific?

You're assuming mathematics in your answer, but you haven't explained why such a thing as mathematics exists rather than doesn't exist. Dylan's correct I think.

Also, mathematics applicability breaks down at the quantum level.

No it doesn't. Mathematics is the only reason we understand the quantum level. We just he to use more complicated stuff like Grassman numbers.

Explain. (And I thought we were still trying to understand the quantum level)

Also, maths is abstract, so technically it doesn't "exist". That was my point.

How can something that does not exist control everything that does exist?

Asking why we exist is pointless, as it assumes some absolute, hard line between things that "exist" and things that "don't exist".

5 sided squares don't exist. 4 sided squares do exist though. I don't see anything hazy between the two. And if nothing existed at all, there would clearly be no drawing any line, so why can we draw any type of line?

Our basic understanding of the surrounding world breaks down the closer we examine everything. Who's to say the concept of "existence" won't break down as well? What if there are intermediate/alternative states that we don't recognise because our brains haven't evolved to recognise them?

This is rather hypothetical.

Imagine there are two universes, both capable of supporting intelligent life, with incompatible laws of physics. Does universe A exist relative to universe B? They have no way of interacting or detecting each other's existence. What about universe C, where the laws of physics allow interaction with both A and B? Or universe D, which interacts with C in a way that stops it interacting with A and B?

What if "nothing" is merely infinite different types of "something"?

I'm babbling, somebody stop me and provide feedback.

Yes, "what if?" "What ifs" are fine but there's no particular reason to believe in the "if" so I don't see these hypothetical ponderings as very useful the current discussion.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

Of course we don't know everything about the quantum level, but we're not clueless either.

5-sided squares do exist, we call them pentagons.

What if our understanding of "nothing" is flawed? We've evolved in a universe with "something", there's no way to conceive what "nothing" is like. I know it's an argument from ignorance, but I'm really just throwing out ideas instead of trying to prove anything.

The whole thread is hypothetical.

The discussion itself isn't "useful" as we have no way of answering those questions at the present time - or possibly even at all. But seeing as how we're discussing it anyway, the nature of "nothing" is highly relevant.

Of course we don't know everything about the quantum level, but we're not clueless either.

Well that's not what I meant obviously. You said we understand the quantum level and through mathematics. I didn't know we understood it (I guess we still don't) and I don't know of the mathematics you mentioned. But the more important point is mathematics applicability to the quantum realm.

What if our understanding of "nothing" is flawed? We've evolved in a universe with "something", there's no way to conceive what "nothing" is like. I know it's an argument from ignorance, but I'm really just throwing out ideas instead of trying to prove anything.

I think it's mostly sufficient to be able to grasp the idea of "something". We know what "something" is and could conceive of it not being. Its "not being" could be labelled as "nothing" even if we can't completely grasp the concept of nothing. We could see anything that is as having not been, so really we can just apply our questioning to everything.

The whole thread is hypothetical.

How's that?

The discussion itself isn't "useful" as we have no way of answering those questions at the present time - or possibly even at all. But seeing as how we're discussing it anyway, the nature of "nothing" is highly relevant.

You stated before, "the reason there is something rather than nothing is because the line between real and abstract is blurry". That sounded like you thought you had an explanation but now you're saying we have no way of answering it.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.

At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.

We don't understand true "nothing" because we have never experienced it. All arguments about causation are inductive logical arguments. Since we can assert nothing about nothing except that it's nothing, we can't really make claims.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 4/7/2013 9:53:20 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:We don't understand "nothing" or "infinity" very well. Why is that the case?

What is with this trend to proclaim that we "don't understand nothing"? It's just such nonsense. Nothing is just the absence of anything. It is not anything at all. To say that there is nothing is just to say that all existential propositions are false. Nothing is nada, zilch. What about that is so hard to understand? "Nothing" is NOT a quantum vacuum, nor is it empty space, nor is it some state of affairs or some state with properties. Nothing is just not anything at all!

And to ask why there is something rather than nothing is just to ask why it isn't the case that existential propositions (e.g. a car exists, a dog exists, a house exists, a planet exists, etc.) are false.

We don't understand true "nothing" because we have never experienced it. All arguments about causation are inductive logical arguments. Since we can assert nothing about nothing except that it's nothing, we can't really make claims.

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

How can one go about to "experience" nothing? And never mind that; nothing, as I said, is just simply not anything at all. Nothing is just the negation of an existential -Ex. Again, what is so hard to understand about that?

That's not what's "hard to understand". But when someone tries to assert an attribute to nothing (such as that "nothing can come from nothing") they're making an assertion that is not based on actual reality.

To say that "nothing can come from nothing" is not to ascribe an attribute or property to nothing at all; this is just to say that "nothing" lacks the property or attribute of being any type of cause at all (be it efficient, material, formal, etc.). Which makes perfect sense, seeing as how nothing cannot have any properties whatsoever for there isn't anything to have properties in the first place. It helps to think of nothing, I think, in an Aristotelian-Thomistic manner. "Nothing" has no potentiality whatsoever as there is nothing for there to have potentiality. Thus there is not anything about nothing which can be actualized. Ergo, nothing has no causal powers whatsoever for there is not anything for there to have them. But what keeps me up at night is why it must take several paragraphs to explain this simple, childish banality to the atheist du jour. Nothing is just so simple and banal concept that I daresay even those who are not at all familiar with philosophy can easily grasp. But not the atheist du jour. Instead, they imbibe the intellectual offal that emanates from the putrid and damaged gray matter of public imbeciles like Lawrence Krauss...

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.

All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.

What is it with trying to describe the blatantly obvious in the most complex terms possible? What is the point in pondering "nothing?" What possible insite could come from it. There would be no need to even have insite. There is no need to even ask the question.

Ok, now that I have said it, school me on "nothing." Wait, you don't have to, there is "nothing" to teach.

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.

All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.

I like how you ignore perfectly legitimate points, such as "we can't even show that "true nothing" isn't a contradiction in possibility", by pretending no points were made at all. That's classy.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 4/7/2013 6:20:57 PM, phantom wrote:Why is "nothing" being contradictory important? That's the one part I'm confused on since it presupposes that logical laws exist and thus fails to explain somethings existence. If logical laws didn't exist, there would be no problem with the concept of "nothing". It's only because logical laws exist that you can make this argument, so you haven't given a complete explanation.

Well, I think the point is, that notion which entails a logical contradiction, could not ever have been, is not, and will not ever be the case. Thus, if "nothing" is contradictory, that means there has always been something. You are basically arguing that if the laws of logic don't exist, then illogical things can happen, so who cares if it is illogical....right? Well, This is true....Assuming "Nothing" was actually the case though, which is the problem. If we operate around the assumption that logical contradictions do not exist in reality, then if "nothing" = no laws of logic, then "nothing" is an impossibility.

Sorry: No. You are making an assertion. And it seems to make sense! But it's an assertion about something that we don't even know if it is possible to exist. It could be a nonsequitor to say "nothing can come from nothing" as much as it's a nonsequitor to say "God can make a stone so heavy he can't lift it". Once you start making claims about your "nothing", without reference to reality, you're engaging in sophistry. You're using your definitions of words to try to affect reality; it doesn't work like that.

All these pseudo-philosophical and ambiguous claims that I somehow have no "reference to reality" and the like really serve as nothing but a waste of bandwidth and burdens to conversation. I see lot of text in this reply but I don't see any substantial point being made here, much less anything I can meaningfully respond to.

I like how you ignore perfectly legitimate points, such as "we can't even show that "true nothing" isn't a contradiction in possibility", by pretending no points were made at all. That's classy.

You're just throwing around useless possibilities and not defending them. Apart from that, you're uttering muddleheaded and pseudo-philosophical ambiguities that I have no interest whatsoever to decipher. Maybe that's not gentile of me but, hey, crucify me #badjoke

At 4/8/2013 4:28:30 PM, sadolite wrote:What is it with trying to describe the blatantly obvious in the most complex terms possible? What is the point in pondering "nothing?" What possible insite could come from it. There would be no need to even have insite. There is no need to even ask the question.

Ok, now that I have said it, school me on "nothing." Wait, you don't have to, there is "nothing" to teach.